취업제한 결정 처분 취소청구의 소
1. The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015 on the restriction on employment shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The details of the instant disposition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff served as a public official belonging to the Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Fair Trade Commission”) and retired on February 16, 2015; and (b) the department to which the Plaintiff belonged for five years before retirement (hereinafter collectively referred to as “department to which the Plaintiff belonged before retirement”).
On February 17, 2010, from January 10, 201 to January 10, 201, the name of the department in charge of position during the work period B B, the corporate cooperation bureau B, and the director C, from January 11, 201 to February 27, 2014, and the director C, the director C, from February 28, 2014 to February 16, 2015, the plaintiff of the director-class II-II D, who requested the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "institution scheduled to be employed") to verify whether employment is restricted to the defendant on April 30, 2015, in order to work as a full-time advisory station in charge of providing advice on the prevention of violation of the Fair Trade Act and compliance with the laws and regulations.
On July 1, 2015, the Defendant collected the total of 38,181,00,000 won from the three penalty surcharges on the scheduled employment institution at the time when the Plaintiff was employed by the director of C, and imposed 83 penalty surcharges and corrective orders on the scheduled employment institution during five years before the Plaintiff retired. Construction companies are subject to heavy sanctions from the Fair Trade Commission with regard to bid collusion and unfair subcontracting in terms of business characteristics. Since 195, the Plaintiff worked for a long period since 195, and the expected employment position is scheduled to provide comprehensive advisory services on the fair trade as full-time advisory service, based on the possibility that the Plaintiff may exercise undue influence on the work of the department belonging to the Plaintiff prior to his retirement, which may directly affect the property right of the scheduled employment institution, and Article 28(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 12946, Dec. 30, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 27, 2019).